Politicians: The Crooked Men (And Women) Who Went A Crooked Mile

By Shakur Pfist
Of Lehigh Valley What The Heck?!

First off, let me say that there is no way, no matter how charismatic, how dynamic a politician is, that he is not going to get a hearty, healthy heaping of What The Heck?! from this website. I don’t care if they’re Republican or Democrat, or any of the other minor food groups.

When is the public going to learn that all politicians are corrupt simply because the system itself is inherently corrupt? (Most systems of government are.) By its very nature a political system that provides too much monetary incentive exerts excessive temptation to wield power for personal gain.

And though many of you are shrieking, “Anarchist!” right about now, let me say for the record I am not an anarchist. I believe our basic system of government, as defined by the founding fathers, is the best around. It is the most stable, has the most checks and balances (at least in theory), and it provides a common “law of the land” for all people, transcending all other alliances, therefore uniting us under a system of values rather than of ethnicity, race, or religion. In fact, our values are our culture.

But, there are definite ways of making it better.

Sure, some politicians are corrupt to greater or lesser degrees. But if they all weren’t sullied by the greasy waters of the political pool (think of the slimy pond in front of the gates of Moria in LOTR), they would voluntarily do the following:

• Accept a salary that was less than the median income is in their state, or ideally no salary at all

• Reign in their expense account, or give it up in favor of provided services

• Limit terms so that the natural flow of ideas is not stagnated.

• Limit campaign contributions to $10 per person and none from businesses or better yet stop taking private money entirely

Is this really too much to ask?

Politicians should remember that being a representative is not a job—it’s public service. This is not a new idea, it goes straight back to the early days of our nation. Representatives only have to show up to vote, at least in the state of Pennsylvania. This is not and should not be considered a “career”.

If politicians make a median salary or better yet none at all, then there is no personal incentive other than the will to do good (we’d hope) for the people. A politician would then become someone with a vocation to make the world a better place, not some selfless creature, but one who knows that he will benefit personally from the overall betterment of the circumstances of each individual in society.

And don’t give me that “Socialist!” crap. I am all for individual rights, but a group of individuals constitutes a society, a group, no matter how you want to do the math.

Additionally, if politicians were unable to become entrenched career politicians, they would be more concerned with the business at hand and less concerned with figuring out how to get re-elected.

The costs associated with meals, transportation, and housing for politicians who must travel from their home bases are real, however why not put a cap on the amount they can spend per meal. Some ideas are:

• Allow the public to vote on how much their average meal at a middle class restaurant should cost

• Compensate the politician for travel time the same way most people are compensated: by making them submit mileage. They could also be granted some small amount for wear and tear on a vehicle. OR

• We can provide them with a middle class company vehicle like a low end Honda or Toyota, or if we have to stay domestic, a Ford Focus. They can drive themselves, just like anyone else would have to do. Better yet, let them take public transportation once in a while. I know there are several trains that go from Philly to Harrisburg regularly.

• For housing, we can take a look at universities for our cue, and I don’t mean the Ivy League ones. Let them live in dormitories, the standard being that of the best state schools. Surely this standard of lodging should be amenable to the average politician, given the luxurious allowance of a private bath for each room and maybe t.v. Of course, we would give them an internet connection for their laptops (laptops being their own purchase).

• Finally, the only way to remove special interests once and for all from politics is by limiting their ability to put politicians in their pockets. Why not have a basic campaign allowance, to be voted on by citizens, allotted for each politician. With those limitations, the challenge would be to come up with the most creative ways to get their message out there, without one having a greater advantage. They would have to start on equal footing. They also could not contribute their own finances to the campaign. This would allow access to the political arena for everyone, not just the rich and privileged.

Public Schools and Charter Schools: Letting The Cream Rise To The Top Doesn’t Make The Milk Go Bad (The Milk Might Be Bad Already!)

By Shakur Pfist
Of Lehigh Valley What The Heck?!

By now you’ve probably heard both sides of the debate over charter schools vs. public schools. The name of the battle, however, is inaccurate, since charter schools are a type of public school, offering what is sometimes the only alternative to the broader and magnificently failing public school system available to the non-rich in the state of Pennsylvania.

The (possible) Lehigh College Prep Charter School is one such school that aims to let the cream finally rise to the top—or at least give it the opportunity to do so without it getting whipped first. With a curriculum aimed at math, science, and technology, the proposed school hopes to provide students from all over the Lehigh Valley and from all walks of life with a more targeted education, priming them for university degrees and careers on the cutting edge.

As the coalition for this charter school moves forward seeking approval from the Allentown School Board, and as the Pennsylvania State Senate considers changes to facilitate the creation such charter schools, arguments and comments from both sides are drawing attention.

The argument put forth by one, Arlene Scott, of Upper Saucon Township, is that charter schools use public resources to aid a select group—and that they increase social, cultural, and academic segregation and undermine the basic foundation of the public school (whatever that is). She even goes on to use that by now clichéd expression harkening back to the dark days of racial segregation in the U.S., “separate but equal”, stating that charter schools by their very nature create this kind of environment.

I should hope not. Charter schools exist to provide a community with an alternative to the substandard curriculum, weak educators, and often dangerous public school environment that many children have to face. They provide a focused and specific educational directive, require greater accountability not only from teachers but from parents, and allow individualized attention for students in need.  Right off the bat you can tell this is not “separate but equal”—it is far superior.

Ms. Scott bemoans the fact that charter schools “control student admission, dismiss the truant and behaviorally challenged, and have much more power to customize many aspects of curriculum and instruction.” And this is a bad thing how?

Should we reward class cutting, acting out, and poor academic progress on the part of students with exemplary opportunities which most likely they will not value, or worse yet should we not provide any of these great opportunities just for the sake of having everyone educated equally poorly? Should we grant ever more monstrous sums of money to inept public school system educators and indifferent, entrenched administrators? Should we not tailor school curriculum to the demands of today’s intellectual or artistic requirements for success, or for whatever ultimate goal a child may have?

And let us recall, and remember for all posterity, that this is a public school—anyone from any background can attend. We are no longer living in the day where, say, being a minority meant you were poor or from an uneducated family. In fact, I’m pretty sure it never meant that to begin with. The “separation” you speak of, Ms. Scott, is simply the serious student and parent from the disinterested student and parent.

You also seem to intimate, Ms. Scott, that charter schools are almost a form of ethnic or cultural cleansing instituted by a privileged few. And the tenor of your argument seems to indicate you mean either rich people or white people. I don’t know about you, but in the case of Lehigh College Prep Charter School some of the prospective founders’ names don’t exactly strike me as “Wasp-ish” (if you’re going that “only white people=rich and privileged” route, which is ridiculous) or even from any one particular race or ethnicity. Several founders are from the medical and scientific community at large, which is not made up of only one ethnic group last time I looked.

But it all must transcend to the crux of the biscuit: Should we not be able to separate the wheat from the chaff, especially if the wheat is really working its butt off? Should we just throw the baby out with the bath water, (love those clichés) for that matter, and chuck the best students into the pen with the animals (violent students, bad teachers, et.al.) that would rend and destroy them? We are not Communist China, not the old U.S.S.R. If you don’t offer the carrot, then no one will reach for it.

Ms. Scott, What The Heck are you thinking?!—that the public school system would actually meet a higher standard if not for the existence of charter schools? Public schools for years, engorged with huge sums, have been unable to meet acceptable national, let alone world standards.

Halting the development of charter schools won’t change that. But it might even things out just enough that mediocrity can continue to be the acceptable norm.

Financial Discrimination: Let Them Eat Cake, But Not At Fresh Market

By Shakur Pfist
Of Lehigh Valley What The Heck?!

The Fresh Market at the Promenade Shops at Saucon Valley caters to a clientele supposedly both wealthy and educated, the upper crust of the provincial area. But often with education comes a feeling of social responsibility, at least in principle. Not necessarily in practice, as I found out one afternoon, while shopping there.

As I moseyed down the resplendent aisles tastefully arranged with delicacies unsuited to the pedestrian palette, I also encountered a cornucopia of the basic, everyman, homegrown victuals most Americans have come to know and love (and eat), like apples and oranges, bread, cheese, eggs, meat, and more.

And though I must admit that I would not choose to shop there for staple foods, I found myself on the verge of hunger and hoping to buy a few quick items for that night’s meal. As I waited in line to check out, I couldn’t help but notice the fresh faced patrons, a clean cut and prosperous looking bunch, people so wealthy that they didn’t even have to try hard to look wealthy.

But looks can be deceiving. I was there too, I with my paltry journalist’s pay, possibly on the brink of being eligible for food stamps in this uncertain economy.

The harsh reality is that one heck of a lot of people are out of work. The unemployment rate for Pennsylvania is dropping by increments only as people are dropping off the radar. People are moving back home with older parents, going on welfare, living off savings or if lucky, going back to school in hopes of job retraining. College graduates, educated professionals are for the first time experiencing what it is to become poor, to live on food stamps, perhaps, while considering downsizing to section 8 housing.

So when I got to the front of the line, I blurted out “Do you guys accept food stamps?” Not that I had them. I was at first only joking, but while standing in the cue I had been musing about how things were really getting tight and I might just see if I qualified for the SNAP (food stamp) program. I fully expected the friendly cashier to say “Of course we do!”–it was almost a given in my mind, for in this economy I couldn’t conceive of ANY food store choosing not to participate in the food stamp program.

I was told that Fresh Market does not accept food stamps. When I expressed surprise (which was really outrage forced into the thin guise of surprise), the cashier even agreed with me, surprised himself. Just to double check, I asked one of the front end managers who assured me that Fresh Market does certainly NOT accept food stamps. It seemed she was proud of that fact.

I asked both the cashier and the manager if this seemed like discrimination against the poor, but to that there was no reply. (Crickets chirping in the silence…)

It was all too weird to be true. I had to find out if this actually was the policy, if Fresh Market was so obsessed with its image as the hoity-toity gourmet that it had, like its wealthy human brethren, lost complete touch with reality, with the economy, with what was going on in the world.

I got in touch with Kristen Cowart, a public relations representative for Fresh Market, and asked her about the chain’s policies. She said, via email, ”The Fresh Market does not currently accept EBT cards or food stamps… because we have concluded that the costs associated with participating in the program currently outweigh the benefits for The Fresh Market and its customers.”

When asked about the costs of the SNAP program to retailers, Jean Daniel of the USDA said there was no cost to retailers. “Retailers are not required to accept the program, it’s a business decision. We’ve seen a number of stores come on board recently, (like) Target and Costco, mainly because retailers understand that’s part of a business model. We can’t compel retailers to accept the program”. Daniel says 85% of all retailers that accept SNAP are grocery stores.

When I got back to Kristen Cowart of Fresh Market, confronting her with the USDA policy, she said, via email, “It is true that there is no government-associated cost to participate in the SNAP and WIC programs; however the cost to retailers is in the payment systems – software, hardware, data entry and administration – required to process transactions using EBT.”  Does anyone think for even a moment that Fresh Market is not already paying for most if not all of the above costs?

But when asked if she was aware that a grocery store having a policy of not accepting food stamps could be interpreted as a form of financial discrimination against poorer people, there was no response.

It boils down to this:

What The Heck was Fresh Market thinking, denying poor people access to groceries? In this economy?! What an elitist approach to business and customer service. But I guess you want to keep the riff-raff out. And why would you think that people on food stamps or even welfare don’t deserve to have a few special foods when they want? No, these aid recipients may not be your targeted clientele, but they’re human beings, like you and me, and some of them may have recently been making a decent living before getting laid off when the big bad economy blew their roof in. Many may go on to make a heck of a lot more money than your average employee makes. Then they will be your targeted clientele, but they won’t shop with you then, because you denied them now!

Many of your current patrons, who though wealthy, have great social conscience, will be shocked and appalled to know that Fresh Market practices financial discrimination, which can, needless to say, often result in racial discrimination. Think about it.

Fresh Market to the poor: “Let them eat cake, but don’t let them do it here! Don’t you dare desire that slice of brie with your Saltine crackers and ketchup soup!”

Shakur Pfist to Fresh Market: You might care about your customers, but you don’t care about people.